For years, alternative economic analysts have been warning that the “miraculous” rise in U.S. stock markets has been the symptom of wider central bank intervention and that this will result in dire future consequences. We have heard endless lies and rationalizations as to why this could not be so, and why the U.S. “recovery” is real. At the beginning of 2016, the former head of the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve crushed all the skeptics and vindicated our position in an interview with CNBC where he stated:

What the Fed did — and I was part of that group — is we front-loaded a tremendous market rally, starting in 2009.It’s sort of what I call the “reverse Wimpy factor” — give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow. I’m not surprised that almost every index you can look at … was down significantly. [Referring to the results in the stock market after the Fed raised rates in December.]

Fisher continued his warning (though his predictions in my view are wildly conservative or deliberately muted):

…I was warning my colleagues, “Don’t go wobbly if we have a 10-20 percent correction at some point. … Everybody you talk to … has been warning that these markets are heavily priced.

Here is the issue — stocks are a mostly meaningless factor when considering the economic health of a nation. Equities are a casino based on nothing but the luck of the draw when it comes to news headlines, central banker statements and algorithmic computers. Today, as Fischer openly admitted, stocks are a purely manipulated indicator representing nothing but the amount of stimulus central banks are willing to pour into them through various channels.

Even with the incredible monetary support pooled together by international financiers, returns on equities investments continue to remain mostly flat. It would seem that the propping up of indexes like the Dow has been only for the sake of keeping up appearances. For many people, revenue is barely being generated.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans do not care to educate themselves on the finer points of finance. Their only relation to the health of the economy is their daily glance at the Dow. If it is green, or at all-time highs, they assume that all is well, even if their gut is telling them something is not quite right.

The elites that stand at the helm of the Federal Reserve understand this dynamic very well. They are not stupid. They know that the whole of the global economy could be in a shambles but as long as stocks remain positive the masses will continue to ignore reality until the flames of destabilization are at their very doorsteps.

With this fact in mind one might think that the Fed would consider it in their best interest to keep stimulus measures operating indefinitely; but that is not what they are doing.

In fact, the Fed along with other central banks like the ECB has been slowly peeling back pillars of support from markets that have been in place since 2008-2009 and leaving the system open to a crisis event that should have been dealt with years ago. I examined this process of deliberate destabilization in my article “The Global Economic Reset Has Begun.”

In that piece I outlined the three major pillars holding up the U.S. market system and certain parts of our economy and how they were being systematically removed. The first pillar was the use of bailouts and quantitative easing measures. These were diminished through the implementation of the Fed “taper,” which I predicted would happen three months prior that year.

The second pillar was the use of near zero interest rates, which allowed numerous banks and corporations to access low-cost and no-cost overnight loans from the Fed. These companies then used these loans in large part to support a never-ending program of stock buybacks, which reduced the stock pool and artificially boosted the values of the remaining stocks. I predicted in August of 2015 that the Fed would hike interest rates and that this would be the beginning of the end for the stock buyback bonanza. The Fed hiked rates in December of that year.

This process of removing backdoor manipulation through low interest rates should be our main concern right now. Early in 2016 I believed that the Fed would reach a position in which it would finally unleash a series of rate hikes. I did not think they would be so blatant as to wait until right after the U.S. presidential election to do so. I was wrong.

As I have been arguing for most of the past year, the election of Donald Trump was inevitable and would precede the triggering of the final stage of our ongoing economic crisis. I came to realize that the Fed’s timing of their latest rate hike is highly strategic. Not only does it set the stage for a series of hikes that will crush U.S. stock markets this coming year and finally shock the public out of their fiscal stupor, but it also maneuvers the crisis right into the lap of Donald Trump and the conservative movements that support him.

Beyond this, it perpetuates an increasing Left/Right division in America. Think about it — during a fiscal crisis under Trump, triggered by accumulating Fed rate hikes, liberals will immediately set upon Trump as the culprit, while conservatives will immediately defend Trump as a victim of Federal Reserve meddling.

The Federal Reserve and the mainstream media are already composing the narrative by stating that Trump’s potential economic policies and a widening budget deficit would REQUIRE higher rates at a faster pace in order to be accommodated.

I have heard arguments from some that this tactic would simply not work. That people would “never buy” a narrative in which Trump and conservatives are blamed for a market collapse that was at least eight years in the making. I have to say, this view is incredibly naive.

I understand why people would want to embrace the notion that the public is as savvy as the liberty movement when looking at economic events, but this simply isn’t reality. A large portion of the U.S. population identifies with the “Left” end of the political spectrum. We have already seen how they react in the face of a Trump election win. They are predisposed to believe that Trump is responsible for a market crash regardless of the facts. Not to mention, much of the rest of the world is economically ignorant and will likely jump on the anti-conservative bandwagon during a crisis as well.

But the real master stroke of this strategy on the part of the elites is that it creates the perfect platform for the destruction of the U.S. dollar’s world reserve status — the third and final pillar I mentioned months ago that is supporting our economic system.

Imagine that the Fed’s rate hike frenzy sparks an open feud between the central bank and Trump? Some people might say “Good! Shut the bastards down!” However, this is exactly what the elites want. With the Fed “at odds” with the president of the U.S., faith in the U.S. dollar will plummet. Its world reserve status will be destroyed. And instead of being blamed on central banks, the majority of people around the world will claim it was the fault of Trump.

With a historically sufficient excuse for the end of dollar dominance in hand, the elites can move forward with their great global reset, which includes the replacement of the dollar with the IMF’s special drawing rights as the go-to reserve currency mechanism. The SDR basket is an essential bridge in the formation of a single global monetary authority and a true single global currency.

I believe that the Fed will not only continue hiking interest rates throughout 2017, but that some of these rate hikes may be LARGER than many people expect (50 basis points or more). I believe this will be designed to foster extreme tensions between the executive branch and the central bank.

A few months ago I would have said that Trump may or “may not” be aware of this dynamic and the potential that he is a scapegoat. Now that I have seen Trump’s cabinet picks which include neo-con and Goldman Sachs alumni, I have little doubt that he is fully cognizant of the plan. I will be writing more on the issue of Trump as a “Trojan horse” in my next article. In the meantime I would point out that all of the elements of psychological support for stock markets will also disappear in the face of a Trump verses establishment narrative.

All those leftist media outlets cherry picking economic stats and telling half truths to support the recovery lie now have no reason to continue cheerleading for the economy. I expect that propaganda rags like Reuters and Bloomberg will quickly change their tune with Trump in the Oval Office and begin a consistent chorus of negative financial data. Not only will the Fed remove all support from the system, but the mainstream media will be pounding day traders with the kind of “doom and gloom” headlines that they have been criticizing us for over the years.

Make no mistake, the election of Trump may have some in the liberty movement ready to pack up their preps and forget about any national crisis in their lifetimes, but the truth is, vigilance is needed now more than ever. I said it before the election and I’ll say it today — do not get comfortable; the times are about to get even more interesting.

You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market.com. If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.

Organized efforts are underway by Democratic Party affiliated NGO’s to try and somehow delegitimize the results of this week’s US Presidential Election.

On the eve of the US Election before voters went to the polls, 21WIRE political affairs analyst Patrick Henningsen accurately predicted this week’s unrest when he said:

“If Trump wins, expect the likes of Soros and MoveOn.org to unleash wave after wave of flash mobs, who will protest, riot, smash and burn their way on to CNN’s 24 hour news rotation. Expect Occupy 2.0, and #BlackLivesMatter to rage.”

On Friday, Henningsen talked to RT International about the post-elections protests that were coordinated in part by Democratic Party ‘community organizing’ online platform MoveOn.org. Watch:.Not surprisingly, MoveOn.org have also launched a national ‘activist’ campaign to “Abolish the Electoral College” after Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton came up short with 232 (including New Hampshire) to Donald Trump’s 306 (including Arizona and Michigan). Final totals are not yet in, but thus far 2016 would be the fifth time in U.S. history that a presidential candidate has won the White House while losing the total popular vote.

21WIRE Associate Editor Shawn Heltonrecently revealed more details about how the near exact same methods used in CIA and Soros-funded ‘color revolutions’ overseas – are now being deployed on US domestic shores by similar NGO front organizations: has been the driving force behind nationwide protests against the election of Donald Trump.

“Overseas, Washington tends to use the same cast of NGO fronts to build-up pro-US political opposition groups, as well as plan and generate civil unrest. They include the Albert Einstein Institute (AEI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House and later the International Center for Non-Violent Conflict (ICNC), and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the financial and contractor arm of the Department of State. Inside the US, deep state actors in Washington generally work through Democratic Party affiliated organizations like MoveOn.org, as well as through labor union organizations like AFL-CIO, and UNITE HERE. These, along with many other similar organizations have been involved in organizing this week’s protests,” says Helton.

Helton also raised the question as to why President Obama has stayed silent in the face of street protests, opting instead to “lead from behind.” He explains:

“Certainly, judging by President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s total silence over their own party’s role in fomenting this week’s unrest – one can only conclude that both party leaders approve of the protests and riots. The political motivation is undeniable – to help delegitimize a new Trump presidency.”

The voting machines have decided who will be the next puppet figurehead of the Pax Americana deep state for the next four years. The circus is over and the peanut shells are being swept out of the stands. So what do we have to show for all of it?

Well, I have some good news, some bad news, and some not-so-good news for you. Let’s start with the bad news.

Apparently some people voted for Trump in the belief that he was some sort of anti-establishment truth-telling hero of the working class. I hate to be the one to disabuse you of this notion, so let’s just look at his transition team, his campaign team, the people who have already been tapped to be part of the new administration and the people who are being contacted for potential cabinet appointments. Warning: It’s not a pretty picture.

So who’s leading this transition team that’s helping to sort out the cabinet and move Team Trump into the White House? Oh, just the usual assortment of bankster-connected corporate lobbyists we would expect to be hanging around any president-elect. This time is no exception. From former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Eric Ueland to Koch Industries lobbyist Michael Catanzaro to Aetna / Verizon lobbyist William Palatucci, the gaggle of corporate cronies manning Trump for America Inc. (the actual nonprofit group set up to oversee the transition) are as establishment as they come. And the whole kit-and-kaboodle is being run by Chris Christie. Yes, that Chris Christie.

And who are they reaching out to for potential positions in the Trump White House?

Steven Mnuchin – The chief fundraiser for the Trump campaign was not featured in a lot of alt-right cheerleading for the Trump train, and for good reason: He is a 17-year Goldman Sachs veteran who went on to work for Soros Fund Management. Yes, that Soros. Oh, and he donated to Hillary Clinton. But other than that, I’m sure he’s a great fundraiser. Which is why he is apparently a frontrunner to be Secretary of the Treasury in the Trump White House. That’s right folks, yet another Goldman Sachs vampire squid alumni is within a hair’s breadth of taking over the Treasury, just like Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin before him. But don’t worry, because another person in consideration for the Treasury Secretary position is…

Jamie Dimon – I’m going to assume you know who Jamie Dimon is, but just to make sure everyone is aware, let me spell it out in black and white: Jamie Dimon is chairman, president and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase, the monstrous banking offspring of JP Morgan & Co. and the Rockefellers’ own Chase Manhattan. Other than Lloyd “God’s work” Blankfein, it would be hard to find a more bankster-y bankster in the world of banksterism. To list Dimon’s entire rap sheet would be an editorial unto itself, but let’s just remind ourselves of his role in the 2008 bailout fiasco via my Federal Reserve documentary, Century of Enslavement:

A stunning 2011 Government Accountability Office report examined $16 trillion of bailout facilities extended by the Fed in the wake of the crisis and exposed numerous examples of blatant conflicts of interest. Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric served as a director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time the Fed provided $16 billion in financing to General Electric. JP Morgan Chase chief executive, Jamie Dimon, meanwhile, was also a member of the board of the New York Fed during the period that saw $391 billion in Fed emergency lending directed to his own bank. In all, Federal Reserve board members were tied to $4 trillion in loans to their own banks. These funds were not simply used to keep these banks afloat, but actually to return these Fed-connected banks to a period of record profits in the same period that the average worker saw their real wages actually decrease and the economy on main street slow to a standstill.

If there’s any ray of hope here, it’s that (as I discussed with James Evan Pilato on a recent edition of New World Next Week), Dimon recently said he wouldn’t want to become Treasury Secretary due to “Democrat-Republican bullshit.” As Pearse Redmond points out, the Trump team may be floating Dimon’s name right now to make it seem not so bad when they “only” appoint Goldman/Soros insider Mnuchin to the position,

John Bolton – John Bolton is a career Republican insider who served roles in both Bush White Houses, including most recently as UN Ambassador in 2005-2006. He’s also the worst kind of crazed, bloodthirsty neocon who has literally never heard of a foreign invasion he didn’t lust after. Don’t take my word for it, listen to him explain Trump’s foreign policy imperatives…for as many seconds as you can stomach it. And yes, he’s commenting on Trump’s foreign policy because he has been advising the Trump campaign and has been name-dropped for months as a possible Secretary of State in the Trump cabinet. So are all of those who voted Trump over Hillary because they didn’t like her warmongering suitably upset now? Well if not there’s always his picks for Secretary of Defense, like:

Stephen Hadley – Hadley is the man who, acting as Bush Jr.’s Deputy National Security Advisor, served as the conduit for the ridiculously fake yellowcake uranium forgeries that were used to help drum up the war in Iraq. He was also the guy who kept the bogus yellowcake story in Bush’s October 2002 speech in Cincinnati laying out the case for the illegal bloody war of aggression in Iraq. A share of the million dead Iraqi’s blood is on his hands. And he’s in the running to be Trump’s Secretary of Defense.

Reince Priebus – Nothing says “anti-establishment party outsider” like the current chairman of the Republican National Committee, right? Well, guess what: Reince Priebus is under consideration for Trump’s chief of staff. You know, the highest ranking employee of the White House? Priebus is apparently competing against the likes of Stephen Bannon (Trump campaign C.E.O. and former head of Breitbart News) and Jared Kushner‘s (The Donald’s own son-in-law who the Times of Israel takes great pains to point out is an Orthodox Jew, as is Ivanka Trump). Regardless of who gets the spot, the very fact that Priebus is in the running shows that Trump’s feud with the Republican Party was about as real as Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania.

Getting nauseated yet? You should be, but if not there are manymanymany more contemptible establishment insiders who are being vetted for potential cabinet positions at this very moment. But don’t worry, this is why I saved the good news for last.

But first, the not-so-bad news: None of these positions have been filled yet. We don’t know who is going to actually make it into the Trump cabinet at this point. Who knows, maybe it will be a bunch of swell, upstanding Beltway outsiders, non-banksters and populists who are committed to the principles of human freedom. Trump and Change 2016!

That’s right, the electorate favored nobody at all by an almost 2-to-1 margin over either fake, controlled political puppet. Turnout was down from previous elections. Things are looking good.

For those who stayed home out of principle: I salute you.

For those who stayed home out of apathy: can I interest you in some reading?

For those who voted for Clinton: why are you on this website?

And for those who voted for Trump: will you commit to standing by the principles you thought you were voting for when you cast your ballot, or will you rally around the party flag as a new crew of neocons and banksters and establishment insiders step into their pre-ordained roles? And if so, will you re-examine what your vote actually did, or will you simply say “I’ll show them! I’ll vote them out next time!” Because if it’s the latter, then you haven’t learned anything at all.

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic «Blue America» and Republican «Red America» into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

It is doubtful that President Trump’s aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump’s most loyal supporters.

America’s globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military «experts» opposed Trump’s candidacy, Trump is «required» to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such «experts» among Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush’s White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump’s White House team. There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump’s senior- and middle-level positions.

Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

«Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia’s very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited ‘containment’ policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton’s administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton».

President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump’s policies but seek to continue to damage America’s relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama’s lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and «Black Lives Matter», broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

The Soros-financed Russian singing group «Pussy Riot» released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled «Make America Great Again». The video went «viral» on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros’s Purple Revolution in America.

President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

One of Trump’s political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of «a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities». Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as «anti-Semitic». President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros’s son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros’s tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

Editor’s Comment: If Jamie Dimon (of JP Morgan Chase) or anyone else that heads a Wall Street mega-bank, etc. does become Treasury Secretary – and that’s a big if for now, as reports on Jamie Dimon remain unconfirmed – then it will be the clearest signal yet that this latest round of “change” will be more of the same once again. If this proves true, then Trump becomes Obama-in-2008 faster than a sportscar goes from 0-to-60.

Once again, we see the worst and most dangerous elite insiders looking for yet another bailout in the form of jobs, appointment and power over the levers of government policies – climbing back onto the government lifeboat (now in the Trump administration) while working to swamp the rest of the struggling passengers who were on-board the U.S.S. Titanicamerica. A new Captain still can’t stop this trainwreck, even if any change is welcome. A real #drainingtheswamp would be a great start, but early signs cast doubt on that happening.

This was the exact rationale for “The Obama Deception” exposé at the start of Obama’s first term – it’s a deception because it’s a brand new face frontin’ for the same ol’ gang – and people are slow to catch on, and even less willing to admit they got conned. Is Trump the new Obama for the alt right/populist uprising to keep them complacent and blow off enough steam to avert a destabilizing revolution? Does America have time to be wrong all over again? It is our duty to stay focused on these individuals and pressure Trump to dump or block the worst of these appointments.

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

Draining the Swamp? Wall Street is Already Loving Donald Trump

by Michael Krieger

Before we move forward, let’s start with the following extraordinarily disturbing report out of CNBC:

In the wake of Donald Trump’s upset victory, advisors to the president-elect have floated the possibility of naming JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon Treasury secretary, according to two people familiar with the matter, but one of them added that Dimon said he would not be interested in the role.

A Trump spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment, and a spokesman for Dimon declined to elaborate beyond his past remarks that he would not be interested in the job.

First off, I want to say that the above isn’t confirmed. If it’s totally false, the Trump campaign should come out with a quick and vehement denial. I sincerely hope that happens.

That said, the report is cause for serious concern. Why? Because Trump’s reluctance to go after Wall Street was apparent throughout his entire campaign (as opposed to Bernie Sanders), and it was one of the main reasons I could never get comfortable with him. I wrote several posts where I articulated my concerns, but here’s an excerpt from one of them, Donald Trump’s True Colors Emerge as He Snuggles up to Wall Street:

While I’m not a Dodd-Frank fan, it’s not because it was too harsh, but because it didn’t really do much of anything. It was the typical neoliberal bait and switch, designed to look tough for public consumption, while merely making tweaks around the edges of a financial system that requires systemic, paradigm level change.

Trump’s support of repealing Dodd-Frank tells you all you need to know. A Trump Presidency will see Wall Street felons who should be in prison, running as wild and free as ever.

He will be the same thing to distressed working class whites that Obama was to the black community. A fake messiah and a shyster.

Read that last line over and over again until you understand it. If it is true that Trump considered the CEO of the largest “Too Big To Fail” and “Too Big to Jail” U.S. bank for Treasury Secretary, we can be pretty much assured that Donald Trump is the Republican version of Barack Obama. A fraud who talked a good game in order to get elected, but who will be a willing pawn of crony corporations and Wall Street. You can’t drain the swamp by surrounding yourself with the swamp.

If I don’t hear a denial about this rumor, I will assume it’s true, which means Trump and I are off to a very bad start. Whether Dimon takes the role or not (I doubt it), is irrelevant. Merely considering Dimon tells you all you need to know about the types of status quo people who are likely to surround President Trump.

Trump will be a failure unless he brings the right people into his inner circle. This is of the utmost importance. Indeed, I knew for certain Obama was a total fraud the moment he appointed Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner to key positions within his administration. This is the area I think Trump is most vulnerable to making some very big mistakes. Indeed, I was very bothered by the effusive compliments he showered upon one of the nation’s worst political figures, Chris Christie, during this victory speech.

If Trump really wants to shake things up, he needs to think outside of the box and look far beyond the Chris Christies of the world, and consider some very sharp people he’s never heard of. If he surrounds himself with the old, tired political characters we already know, I fear very little will change for the better.

You can’t get more inside the box, status quo than Jamie Dimon. Period. Which brings me to a conspiracy theory about the whole thing. I think there’s a remote possibility that the Trump campaign leaked this themselves with the hope that he can then appoint his preferred candidate, former Goldman Sachs partner, Steve Mnuchin, with little outrage. That’s typical Donald Trump behavior. People will then say, “well at least it’s not Jamie Dimon.” Unfortunately, Steve Mnuchin would be a terrible choice too. As we learned in the post, A Nation of Sheep, Afraid of Words:

Mnuchin’s presence in the campaign reveals how the qualities Trump loyalists projected on their hero don’t measure up to the truth. They have venerated him throughout the Republican primary for rejecting the dirty business of pay-to-play politics, and for populist vows to protect the ordinary worker. But in selecting Mnuchin, not only has Trump submitted to the realities of presidential campaign finance; he’s chosen one of the most notorious bankers in America to carry it out.

When I heard Mnuchin’s name last week, I immediately remembered the front lawn of his mansion. Back in 2011, local housing activists and the Occupy movement in Los Angeles camped out on that lawn to save the home of Rose Mary Gudiel, a La Puente, California, resident who faced eviction after being just two weeks late on one mortgage payment. The activists threatened to move all of Gudiel’s furniture into Mnuchin’s $26 million Bel Air estate if the eviction wasn’t stopped. Twenty police officers and a helicopter met the protesters.

The OneWest subsidiary Financial Freedom executed 39 percent of all foreclosures on reverse mortgages between 2009 and 2015, despite servicing only 17 percent of the market, according to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) obtained by the California Reinvestment Coalition. OneWest disclosed in its most recent annual report that it’s under investigation for this disproportionate share of “widow foreclosures” by HUD’s Inspector General. The victims include 103 year-old Myrtle Lewis of North Texas, who OneWest put into foreclosure after her insurance coverage lapsed; Karen Hunziker, who got a foreclosure notice from OneWest ten days after her husband passed away in 2014; and a host of others.

Trump’s loyal fans aren’t likely to scrutinize Mnuchin’s record, but they should. You can measure political candidates in part by who they associate with. The foreclosure history in Mnuchin’s past reflects an extreme mentality of profit at all costs, and hardly a viewpoint of standing up for the little guy. Trump as populist was always something of a pose, covering for a deep nationalism and antipathy to immigrants. The Mnuchin pick just brings that into sharper relief.

Meanwhile, what was Mnuchin doing right before the election? Why he was the personal guest of Blackstone head Steve Schwarzman at the New York Public Library’s Lions gala.

The setting was the New York Public Library’s Library Lions gala, where the Rose Main Reading Room’s tables were covered in gold cloth, the place mats were made of gold paper laser-cut to resemble the rosettes on the room’s ceiling, and the books were lit with spotlights.

Mnuchin was Schwarzman’s guest — an experience sort of like hanging with Donald Trump in Trump Tower: The gala took place in the library’s Stephen A. Schwarzman Building. The New York Public Library includes this flagship center for collections and exhibitions, as well as more than 80 branch libraries where children learn to read, teens do homework and job-seekers work on their resumes.

“I find the whole thing astonishing and what’s remarkable is the amount of anger whether it’s on the Republican side or the Democratic side,” the Wall Street mogul said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “Bernie Sanders, to me, is almost more stunning than some of what’s going on in the Republican side. How is that happening, why is that happening?”

This is the guy Trump’s finance chair was hanging with a day before the election. You don’t get more status quo than Steve Schwarzman. While we’re at it, here are just a few examples of what Blackstone’s been up to since the financial crisis:

Meanwhile, I think the performance of Wall Street shares since the election tells you all you need to know.

To conclude, this article is primarily written for all my readers who are either Trump supporters, or who reluctantly voted for him. My message to you is that we need to hold this man’s feet to the fire. The election is over, and you got your desired outcome. Now is not the time to be a cheerleader. Now is not the time to behave exactly like Obama zombies did after he became an obvious betrayal. What allowed Obama to do all the bad things he did, was the fact that his supporters made endless excuses for him. Don’t make excuses for Trump. If you do, your life will get a lot worse and this country will decay far more into an authoritarian oligarchy than it already has. It is up to you to make sure he doesn’t become the Wall Street puppet I always feared he would be.

Remember the timeless words of Mark Twain and please take heed.

This isn’t the time for playing around. This isn’t the time for looking the other way. You voted him in to take down the status quo system. Make sure he does it.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

This article was written by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg.com. His columns typify the kind of questions that must be asked during the next administration, no matter if you support or oppose it.

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Hillary has repeatedly said: “We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forceson the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.”

This would mean that U.S. fighter-jets and missiles would be shooting down the fighter-jets and missiles of the Syrian government over Syria, and would also be shooting down those of Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in, as its protector; the U.S. is no protector but an invader against Syria’s legitimate government, the Ba’athist government, led by Bashar al-Assad. The CIA has been trying ever since 1949 to overthrow Syria’s Ba’athist government — the only remaining non-sectarian government in the Middle East other than the current Egyptian government. The U.S. supports Jihadists who demand Sharia law, and they are trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s institutionally secular government. For the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone anywhere in Syria would mean that the U.S. would be at war against Russia over Syria’s skies.

Whichever side loses that conventional air-war would then have to choose whether to surrender, or instead to use nuclear weapons against the other side’s homeland, in order for it to avoid surrendering. That’s nuclear war between Russia and the United States.

Would Putin surrender? Would Hillary? Would neither? If neither does, then nuclear war will be the result.

Here are the two most extensive occasions in which Hillary has stated her position on this:

We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.

This combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the Turkish border from ISIS, choking off its supply lines. It would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that Secretary Kerry is pursuing. …

QUESTION: When you were secretary of state, you tended to agree a great deal with the then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Gates was opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria; thought it was an act of war that was risky and dangerous. This seems to me the major difference right now between what the president — what Obama’s administration is doing and what you’re proposing.

Do you not — why do you disagree with Bob Gates on this?

CLINTON: Well, I — I believe that the no-fly zone is merited and can be implemented, again, in a coalition, not an American-only no-fly zone. I fully respect Bob and his knowledge about the difficulties of implementing a no-fly zone. But if you look at where we are right now, we have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out to a limited extent by the Syrian military, now supplemented by the Russian air force.

And I think we have a chance to do that now. We have a no-fly zone over northern Iraq for years to protect the Kurds. And it proved to be successful, not easy — it never is — but I think now is the time for us to revisit those plans.

I also believe, as I said in the speech, that if we begin the conversation about a no-fly zone, something that, you know, Turkey discussed with me back when I was secretary of state in 2012, it will confront a lot of our partners in the region and beyond about what they’re going to do. And it can give us leverage in the discussions that Secretary Kerry is carrying on right now.

So I see it as both a strategic opportunity on the ground, and an opportunity for leverage in the peace negotiations. …

QUESTION: Jim Ziren (ph), Madam Secretary. Hi. Back to the no- fly zone. are you advocating a no-fly zone over the entire country or a partial no-fly zone over an enclave where refugees might find a safe haven? And in the event of either, do you foresee see you might be potentially provoking the Russians?

CLINTON: I am advocating the second, a no-fly zone principally over northern Syria close to the Turkish (ph) border, cutting off the supply lines, trying to provide some safe refuges for refugees so they don’t have to leave Syria, creating a safe space away from the barrel bombs and the other bombardments by the Syrians. And I would certainly expect to and hope to work with the Russians to be able to do that. [She expects Putin to join America’s bombing of Syria’s government and troops and shooting-down of Russia’s planes in Syria, but no question was raised about this.] …

To have a swath of territory that could be a safe zone … for Syrians so they wouldn’t have to leave but also for humanitarian relief, … would give us this extra leverage that I’m looking for in the diplomatic pursuits with Russia with respect to the political outcome in Syria.

Bernie Sanders’s response to that was: “I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.” He didn’t mention nuclear war as one of them.

Hillary Clinton has never been asked “What would you do if Russia refuses to stop its flights in Syria?” Donald Trump has said nothing about the proposal for a no-fly zone (other than “I want to sit back and see what happens”), because most Americans support that idea, and he’s not bright enough to take her on about it and ask her that question. Probably, if he were supportive of it, he’d have said so — in which case it wouldn’t still be an issue in this election. Trump muffed his chance — which he has had on several occasions. But clearly he, unlike her, has not committed himself on this matter.

Hillary Clinton is obviously convinced that the U.S. would win a nuclear war against Russia. The question for voters is whether they’re willing to bet their lives that she is correct about that, and that even if the U.S. ‘wins’, only Russia and not also the U.S. (and the world) would be destroyed if the U.S. nuclear-attacks Russia.

Every other issue in this election pales by comparison to the no-fly-zone issue, which is virtually ignored, in favor of issues that are trivial by comparison. But a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for nuclear war against Russia, regardless of whether or not the voters know this. And a vote for Trump is a vote for the unknown. Could the unknown be even worse than Hillary Clinton? If so, would it be so only in relatively trivial ways?

This election should be about Hillary Clinton, not about Donald Trump.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.